Cannot get insured anymore due to a non-fault accident.
Discussion
Mandat said:
StottyEvo said:
This is coming from someone who's been involved in multiple non fault accidents, hasn't claimed for injuries but has been stung with increased premiums.
Based on your own experiences, what's you view on the insurer's claim that having been involved with one non-fault accident drivers are at a higher risk of being involved with further accidents? 
Either way, further accidents don't cost my insurer a penny, because each and every time I haven't been at fault. The bill has always been settled by the third party.walm said:
snorky782 said:
Several insurers will control where your car goes or face an increased excess
I don't know how to say this more plainly - it is right there in the thread title.NON-FAULT!!!!
That means there is NO EXCESS!!!!!
The fact that you recover your excess down the line doesn't alter the fact that it was quite possibly paid to start with.
If you continue this approach, that it is a no excess situation, then give me £100,000 and I'll refund it in six months. There's NO LOAN.
snorky782 said:
You choose the amount and in a non-fault you would be responsible for recovering it.
Or you go with AMC or you go with just dealing with the TP insurer direct.No loan by you, no payment of excess.
And you are simply wrong to suggest it is my responsibility to recover it.
Your insurance company do that for you.
Sure you pay it up front but only until the insurer recovers ALL the costs, which includes your excess.
Have you ever made a non-fault claim?
walm said:
And you are simply wrong to suggest it is my responsibility to recover it.
Your insurance company do that for you.
Sure you pay it up front but only until the insurer recovers ALL the costs, which includes your excess.
Have you ever made a non-fault claim?
He's not wrong, you are. Some insurers do it for you, but many don't. It's an uninsured loss recovery, and if they do it, it's an extra service, not to be expected.Your insurance company do that for you.
Sure you pay it up front but only until the insurer recovers ALL the costs, which includes your excess.
Have you ever made a non-fault claim?
Many insurers use the excess as a way of getting out of the work in making a recovery. They let you or your uninsured loss/legal expenses recover the excess, and only when you've done that, do they recover the money they forked out for your repairs. Obviously, the tp insurer having admitted liability by paying your excess, it's easy for your insurers to recover their outlay without getting into arguments over liability.
So I'm afraid you are just plain wrong on this point.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
walm said:
And you are simply wrong to suggest it is my responsibility to recover it.
Your insurance company do that for you.
Sure you pay it up front but only until the insurer recovers ALL the costs, which includes your excess.
Have you ever made a non-fault claim?
He's not wrong, you are. Some insurers do it for you, but many don't. It's an uninsured loss recovery, and if they do it, it's an extra service, not to be expected.Your insurance company do that for you.
Sure you pay it up front but only until the insurer recovers ALL the costs, which includes your excess.
Have you ever made a non-fault claim?
Many insurers use the excess as a way of getting out of the work in making a recovery. They let you or your uninsured loss/legal expenses recover the excess, and only when you've done that, do they recover the money they forked out for your repairs. Obviously, the tp insurer having admitted liability by paying your excess, it's easy for your insurers to recover their outlay without getting into arguments over liability.
So I'm afraid you are just plain wrong on this point.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
He's not wrong, you are. Some insurers do it for you, but many don't. It's an uninsured loss recovery, and if they do it, it's an extra service, not to be expected.
Many insurers use the excess as a way of getting out of the work in making a recovery. They let you or your uninsured loss/legal expenses recover the excess, and only when you've done that, do they recover the money they forked out for your repairs. Obviously, the tp insurer having admitted liability by paying your excess, it's easy for your insurers to recover their outlay without getting into arguments over liability.
So I'm afraid you are just plain wrong on this point.
I am happy to bow to your experience but then I am totally confused.Many insurers use the excess as a way of getting out of the work in making a recovery. They let you or your uninsured loss/legal expenses recover the excess, and only when you've done that, do they recover the money they forked out for your repairs. Obviously, the tp insurer having admitted liability by paying your excess, it's easy for your insurers to recover their outlay without getting into arguments over liability.
So I'm afraid you are just plain wrong on this point.
You say, "you or your uninsured loss/legal expenses recover the excess" - what does that mean?
If it is an uninsured loss then you are using MIB and it's not a non-fault claim is it?
And if you have legal cover who are doing the work on recovering everything then the excess is ALWAYS included, no?
Or are you saying that in order to avoid the expense of contested liability, you make a claim via YOUR insurance and hence pay the excess... at which point despite you refusing to go 50-50 or whatever, the insurance company says, "sorry, suck it up." Again at which point it isn't a non-fault!!
Perhaps I am just misunderstanding something here, but isn't it the case that it isn't possible to have a non-fault where you have PAID AN EXCESS!!! (At the end of everything...)
By definition that means that YOU have accepted some liability since you haven't recovered all your costs.
No?
I understand that there may be some interim period where the moron who hit you is trying it on and you might have to go to our threaten court, but at the END and it is non-fault, how would you possibly end up paying the excess?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
He's not wrong, you are. Some insurers do it for you, but many don't. It's an uninsured loss recovery, and if they do it, it's an extra service, not to be expected.
Many insurers use the excess as a way of getting out of the work in making a recovery. They let you or your uninsured loss/legal expenses recover the excess, and only when you've done that, do they recover the money they forked out for your repairs. Obviously, the tp insurer having admitted liability by paying your excess, it's easy for your insurers to recover their outlay without getting into arguments over liability.
So I'm afraid you are just plain wrong on this point.
This. Many insurers use the excess as a way of getting out of the work in making a recovery. They let you or your uninsured loss/legal expenses recover the excess, and only when you've done that, do they recover the money they forked out for your repairs. Obviously, the tp insurer having admitted liability by paying your excess, it's easy for your insurers to recover their outlay without getting into arguments over liability.
So I'm afraid you are just plain wrong on this point.
walm said:
You say, "you or your uninsured loss/legal expenses recover the excess" - what does that mean?
An uninsured loss is something that you, the claimant are not insured for. In the case of a comprehensive policy you will be insured for the damage to your car, your insurers pay that on your behalf. However the excess is not something they will pay but you are obliged to do. So that is an uninsured loss. Other uninsured losses for example would be loss of earnings, loss of use of your vehicle, personal injury etc.
Your confusing uninsured to mean the other party.
walm said:
I am happy to bow to your experience but then I am totally confused.
You say, "you or your uninsured loss/legal expenses recover the excess" - what does that mean?
Your confusion is quite understandable - it's not at all straightforward. However as I understand it:You say, "you or your uninsured loss/legal expenses recover the excess" - what does that mean?
Your excess is your 'uninsured loss'. For any claim that you make on your insurance, regardless of fault, you will pay the excess. That is what 'uninsured' means in this context.
If you claim on your insurance, but the third party is deemed to be at fault, your insurance company will:
a) Pay the bill, less the excess
b) Leave you to pay the excess direct to the repairer
c) Claim the amount that they have paid from the third party
It is then your responsibility to claim the amount that you have paid (ie your excess, or 'uninsured loss') from the third party. Some insurers, being nice, will do this for you.
What is happening more and more these days is that you skip your insurer entirely and deal directly with the third party insurer, in which case no excess is payable and therefore there is no uninsured loss to claim back.
anniesdad said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
He's not wrong, you are. Some insurers do it for you, but many don't. It's an uninsured loss recovery, and if they do it, it's an extra service, not to be expected.
Many insurers use the excess as a way of getting out of the work in making a recovery. They let you or your uninsured loss/legal expenses recover the excess, and only when you've done that, do they recover the money they forked out for your repairs. Obviously, the tp insurer having admitted liability by paying your excess, it's easy for your insurers to recover their outlay without getting into arguments over liability.
So I'm afraid you are just plain wrong on this point.
This. Many insurers use the excess as a way of getting out of the work in making a recovery. They let you or your uninsured loss/legal expenses recover the excess, and only when you've done that, do they recover the money they forked out for your repairs. Obviously, the tp insurer having admitted liability by paying your excess, it's easy for your insurers to recover their outlay without getting into arguments over liability.
So I'm afraid you are just plain wrong on this point.
I guess I just can't see any situation where you have a non-fault claim and end up paying your excess.
(I think I must have been confused by the fact that the legal team who recovered my excesses were owned by my insurer.)
Apologies to snorky for my ignorance either way!
deckster said:
It is then your responsibility to claim the amount that you have paid (ie your excess, or 'uninsured loss') from the third party. Some insurers, being nice, will do this for you.
Thanks for humouring me!I must have just been very lucky with nice insurers.
Apologies again to snorky!
walm said:
I am happy to bow to your experience but then I am totally confused.
You say, "you or your uninsured loss/legal expenses recover the excess" - what does that mean?
If it is an uninsured loss then you are using MIB and it's not a non-fault claim is it?
And if you have legal cover who are doing the work on recovering everything then the excess is ALWAYS included, no?
Or are you saying that in order to avoid the expense of contested liability, you make a claim via YOUR insurance and hence pay the excess... at which point despite you refusing to go 50-50 or whatever, the insurance company says, "sorry, suck it up." Again at which point it isn't a non-fault!!
Perhaps I am just misunderstanding something here, but isn't it the case that it isn't possible to have a non-fault where you have PAID AN EXCESS!!! (At the end of everything...)
By definition that means that YOU have accepted some liability since you haven't recovered all your costs.
No?
I understand that there may be some interim period where the moron who hit you is trying it on and you might have to go to our threaten court, but at the END and it is non-fault, how would you possibly end up paying the excess?
Substitute uninsured with self insured and it may help you understand. The uninsured / self insured is you, not the other side. You say, "you or your uninsured loss/legal expenses recover the excess" - what does that mean?
If it is an uninsured loss then you are using MIB and it's not a non-fault claim is it?
And if you have legal cover who are doing the work on recovering everything then the excess is ALWAYS included, no?
Or are you saying that in order to avoid the expense of contested liability, you make a claim via YOUR insurance and hence pay the excess... at which point despite you refusing to go 50-50 or whatever, the insurance company says, "sorry, suck it up." Again at which point it isn't a non-fault!!
Perhaps I am just misunderstanding something here, but isn't it the case that it isn't possible to have a non-fault where you have PAID AN EXCESS!!! (At the end of everything...)
By definition that means that YOU have accepted some liability since you haven't recovered all your costs.
No?
I understand that there may be some interim period where the moron who hit you is trying it on and you might have to go to our threaten court, but at the END and it is non-fault, how would you possibly end up paying the excess?
I have a £200 excess on my policy. If I claim at all then the first £200 of any claim is my responsibility. I pay this no matter what. If it's a non fault then I can recover it from the other driver.
If my insurer are efficient then they may do this for me, but probably limited to those claims where liability has been agreed all round before my repairs are completed.
The MIB is not relevant here, as that is where the other driver is uninsured and is not always an option as they are an insurer of last resort. If you have fully comp insurance and are hit by an identified uninsured driver then they won't pay out. This is why an increasing number of insurers have an uninsured driver guarantee where they honour your NCD and sometimes excess even though they can't recover any outlay.
Anyway, the OP has vanished. Wonder why?
Sump said:
No it doesn't. The monies received is purely for the increase in costs due to a non fault claim.
You're not scamming here for a new iPad, that's wrong.
Of course you're scamming and of course its wrong all your doing is adding to the problem but as long as you're alright Jack. Thankfully most people aren't as selfish. You're not scamming here for a new iPad, that's wrong.
Sump said:
ascayman said:
Sump said:
This is pretty much why you just chuck in a whiplash claim. It would have covered the expenses of the insurance hike for the next few years. Imo this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Of course it is, if you actually have whiplash. Otherwise it just marks you out as a selfish t
t really. You're not scamming here for a new iPad, that's wrong.
ker.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff